2017 (8) TMI 301

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....004.40/- (in appeal No.C/13673/2013) in terms of Notification No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 claiming refund of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid at the time of import. The Adjudicating Authority sanctioned Rs. 11,25,154/- but rejected balance amount of Rs. 8,90,850/- as the refund claim was filed after one year from the date of import of goods. Similarly, refund claims in other cases were also rejected on the grounds of limitation. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellants filed appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who inturn, rejected the same. Hence, the present appeals. 3. Ld. Consultant Shri P. P. Jadeja for the appellants submits that in case of rejection of refund of Rs. 8,90,850/- the reason for delay was due to non-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d after one year, therefore, the refunds are barred by limitation. Distinguishing the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd's case, he has submitted that the question was, in absence of any period of limitation prescribed, under the original Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007, whether the period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be applicable. Therefore, the said judgement is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. Heard both sides. I find that the Notification No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No.93/2008 w.e.f. 01.08.2008 reads as follows:- Spl. CVD refund claim to be filed within one year - Amendment to Notification No.102/2007-C....